Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Should you even PVP ? (Corruption)

When I heard there will be the corruption system on players pvp'ing and debuffs such as being marked for bounty hunters, towns being hostile and dropping weapons, I had a thought.

While this does mean players wanting to roam freely without fear of getting ganked will be safer, for some players they do want to be hunting others for loot (I assume you can loot), not grinding PvE.

Whilst I'm not into PVP other than group style mayhem, I feel like there's no reward for being that kind of bad guy who doesn't afraid of anything.

Scarcity of resources being a reason for PVP doesn't mean everyone wants to pvp because its fun to gank noobs show mad skillz.

Maybe griefing will be a thing that persists, I hope it will because for all its faults and toxicity, it's the necessary salt in our collective wounds. Something like that.

Thoughts?
ObHAXye.png
«1

Comments

  • Song_WardenSong_Warden Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I don't even know if I'll be a part of a Node, if my Guild doesn't want a Castle I won't be a part of a Castle either. I might be a Bounty Hunter, if I choose Bounty Hunter I'd be tied to a Military Node. Yet, I do not feel the need to be a part of a Node, if anything, I feel my freedom will be warped through obligations I do not want or need.

    I'm used to soloing in MMOs, however, I have a Guild. I'm used to Dungeons, however, most Dungeons will be public. In public Dungeons I assist others and often find a group.

    I will PvP, most likely in Arenas, if I must be aligned to a Node to enter Arenas then I will be a part of a Node. If I can arena without access to a Node, then again no Node for me.

    In terms of Corruption, If i was a Bounty Hunter I'd want loads of corrupted to hunt, if not a Bounty Hunter, I'd just kill the corrupted I see. In Ashes we can play how we want I'm told, so I would aim to play my own way. We'll have friend lists and in-game communications.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • The reward is the resource of course... or just having fun PVPing it doesn't need to go both ways. Just need to remember there is no escape from someone trying to kill you in game, it will be a matter of kill or be killed in the Ashes of Creation.
  • AardvarkAardvark Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    mcjenkins wrote: »
    The reward is the resource of course... or just having fun PVPing it doesn't need to go both ways. Just need to remember there is no escape from someone trying to kill you in game, it will be a matter of kill or be killed in the Ashes of Creation.

    Sure there is just stand there die take double penalty and poof they take penalty too ...it’s a sucky system but you could use it
  • SikkeSikke Member
    I don't see looting as a reward, when the risks outweigh it
    ObHAXye.png
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Yea, unless you get lucky, there isn't much a reward for just running around and killing random people but the flagging system is a way for people to contest resources/spawns in the open world. A lot of the content is in the open world so not everyone can have it and pvp is an option people have to control it.

  • mcjenkinsmcjenkins Member
    edited July 2020
    If becoming a combatant is a penalty then sure... you wont get corrupted trying to defend yourself from other combatants and corrupted players
  • CaerylCaeryl Member
    There is plenty of PvP content to engage with in the open world. If you attack someone over something valuable, they’ll likely fight back and neither of you take corrupted/non-combatant pentalties.

    What Steven doesn’t want is idiots ganking people at random just because it gives them the giggles.
  • I actually agree. I don't want to grief anyone or attack a low-level player, but being the bad guy is as valid a playstyle as any other and I want bad guys in this game so I'm glad there is the option to do that, but I wonder if the corruption system might be too punishing for people who aren't griefing and are just preying on the weak.

    If you see a low level and suspect they might be full of loot, killing them isn't griefing it's just PvP. If you follow them around and kill them again after already looting them, then that's griefing.. If you continue to harass them or bully them, that's griefing. I feel like the corruption system is great for stopping griefers, but it might also prevent people from just playing the game in a normal and natural way too.

    The flagging system sounds pretty good though, like if I attack them and they DO have loot? They'll want to fight back and then I'm not a red (or something, I'm tired).. So it looks like they're a step ahead of me and already thought of a decent compromise.

    Guess we have to wait until we can test it ourselves, but it's certainly a concern a share with OP in a way.
  • AardvarkAardvark Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Aardvark wrote: »
    the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

    And caravans
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • Aardvark wrote: »
    the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

    And players attacking each other for mats.
  • AardvarkAardvark Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Aardvark wrote: »
    the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

    And players attacking each other for mats.

    If you kill someone who doesn't fight back you get corruption.
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    "people who aren't griefing and are just preying on the weak."

    Isn't preying on the weak the definition of griefing?
  • Aardvark wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

    And players attacking each other for mats.

    If you kill someone who doesn't fight back you get corruption.

    If they do fight back, I don't get corruption though...
    And if they don't fight back, they take bigger penalties, so no fighting back probably means they have nothing worth fighting for, and if my opponent has nothing worth fighting for then I don't want to kill them. Not interested in griefing.
  • AardvarkAardvark Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Aardvark wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

    And players attacking each other for mats.

    If you kill someone who doesn't fight back you get corruption.

    If they do fight back, I don't get corruption though...
    And if they don't fight back, they take bigger penalties, so no fighting back probably means they have nothing worth fighting for, and if my opponent has nothing worth fighting for then I don't want to kill them. Not interested in griefing.

    Or they are as big of griefers as the pvper and use not fighting back as a way to give them the finger carebear style
  • CaerylCaeryl Member
    Aardvark wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

    And players attacking each other for mats.

    If you kill someone who doesn't fight back you get corruption.

    If they do fight back, I don't get corruption though...
    And if they don't fight back, they take bigger penalties, so no fighting back probably means they have nothing worth fighting for, and if my opponent has nothing worth fighting for then I don't want to kill them. Not interested in griefing.

    Or they are as big of griefers as the pvper and use not fighting back as a way to give them the finger carebear style

    Oh please tell us more about this “reverse griefing” and how it ruins your fun to not gank at will
  • edited July 2020
    Aardvark wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

    And players attacking each other for mats.

    If you kill someone who doesn't fight back you get corruption.

    If they do fight back, I don't get corruption though...
    And if they don't fight back, they take bigger penalties, so no fighting back probably means they have nothing worth fighting for, and if my opponent has nothing worth fighting for then I don't want to kill them. Not interested in griefing.

    Or they are as big of griefers as the pvper and use not fighting back as a way to give them the finger carebear style

    The PvPer in this case is not griefing, but .. yeah, they could do that .. but if the person kills you anyway and you didn't fight back, you will also suffer more penalties, not just the corrupted. So there is a pretty strong incentive to fight back, in most cases.

    "A griefer or bad faith player is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways."

    Simply killing someone to take their mats is not griefing. It's an intended part of the game. Not that you said it wasn't, just putting it out there.
  • Yea, unless you get lucky, there isn't much a reward for just running around and killing random people but the flagging system is a way for people to contest resources/spawns in the open world. A lot of the content is in the open world so not everyone can have it and pvp is an option people have to control it.

    This is the purpose of open world pvp
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Aardvark wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

    And players attacking each other for mats.

    If you kill someone who doesn't fight back you get corruption.

    If they do fight back, I don't get corruption though...
    And if they don't fight back, they take bigger penalties, so no fighting back probably means they have nothing worth fighting for, and if my opponent has nothing worth fighting for then I don't want to kill them. Not interested in griefing.

    Or they are as big of griefers as the pvper and use not fighting back as a way to give them the finger carebear style

    Here's the thing, if they don't fight back, it is still your choice if you want to continue to attack them or not. You can always just not kill them.

    You can't grief someone by not fighting back, because all that is doing is giving them the option to stop. You may not get the materials, but you also don't get the corruption.
  • NetoryNetory Member
    The system as it kinda bugs me because it actually gives players some incentive to just lay down and die in order to give the griefer corruption instead of trying to defend themselves. I get that they're encouraged to fight back with a lowered death penalty and what not, but I don't think there should be any reason at all not to defend yourself.
    As it is, you could possibly gank 20 players or more without ever getting corruption provided they all attempted to defend themselves.
    It's really weird player behavior to just sit there and take it when someone starts beating you over the head with a stick.
    0sGgchB.png
  • JubilumJubilum Member, Pioneer, Kickstarter
    They only attack those they know they can beat, they are not looking for a fair fight. They will not start a fight if they think there is any chance they will loose. So what's the point in fighting back, unless just to maybe live a few seconds long hoping the Lone Ranger and Tonto will show up to save you.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    jubilum wrote: »
    So what's the point in fighting back
    Halving your death penalties.
  • JubilumJubilum Member, Pioneer, Kickstarter
    For me the penalty is dying to some punk in mommies basement. I could care less what the game does to me. He can go brag to his buddy's that he just killed someone that sat down and let me kill him...they might be impressed but I doubt it.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    jubilum wrote: »
    For me the penalty is dying to some punk in mommies basement. I could care less what the game does to me. He can go brag to his buddy's that he just killed someone that sat down and let me kill him...they might be impressed but I doubt it.

    That's your call, but if you make it, you don't get to complain about it.
  • JubilumJubilum Member, Pioneer, Kickstarter
    Not sure what you meant with that statement but from being familiar with your responses, it probably wasn't supportive of my concerns.
  • jubilum wrote: »
    For me the penalty is dying to some punk in mommies basement. I could care less what the game does to me. He can go brag to his buddy's that he just killed someone that sat down and let me kill him...they might be impressed but I doubt it.

    Trying to frame anyone who PvPs you without consent as a griefer or some child "in mommies basement" is probably a significant part of why people keep wanting to kill you in video games.
    jubilum wrote: »
    They only attack those they know they can beat, they are not looking for a fair fight. They will not start a fight if they think there is any chance they will loose. So what's the point in fighting back, unless just to maybe live a few seconds long hoping the Lone Ranger and Tonto will show up to save you.

    Obviously, yes.

    "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak."

    The point in fighting back is to escape or survive or in the very least halve your penalties. If you die as a non-combatant you'll be worse off.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    jubilum wrote: »
    Not sure what you meant with that statement but from being familiar with your responses, it probably wasn't supportive of my concerns.

    Your concern was that the game gives you no reason to fight back. As per
    jubilum wrote: »
    So what's the point in fighting back
    Except the game does give you a reason to fight back, you just don't want to take the game up on that, for external reasons that are absolutely yours to make, but are not a part of the game.

    Therefore, as far as I can see, the game has already given you a response to your concern, you just aren't taking it.

    That is now an issue with you, not with the game.
  • LafiLafi Member, Founder, Kickstarter
    PvP isnt griefing :)

    Thanks for listening to my ted talk
    Twitch.tv/Lafidell
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Lafi wrote: »
    PvP isnt griefing :)

    Thanks for listening to my ted talk

    Thank you ted for your talk
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • AardvarkAardvark Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    noaani wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    Aardvark wrote: »
    the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

    And players attacking each other for mats.

    If you kill someone who doesn't fight back you get corruption.

    If they do fight back, I don't get corruption though...
    And if they don't fight back, they take bigger penalties, so no fighting back probably means they have nothing worth fighting for, and if my opponent has nothing worth fighting for then I don't want to kill them. Not interested in griefing.

    Or they are as big of griefers as the pvper and use not fighting back as a way to give them the finger carebear style

    Here's the thing, if they don't fight back, it is still your choice if you want to continue to attack them or not. You can always just not kill them.

    You can't grief someone by not fighting back, because all that is doing is giving them the option to stop. You may not get the materials, but you also don't get the corruption.

    Except if someone doesn't want to pvp that would be the desired outcome...pvper walks off and leaves them alone
Sign In or Register to comment.